Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

"WP:DFD" redirects here. For deletion of disambiguation pages, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Module:, Topic:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers - sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
  • Note that we do not delete user subpages merely to "clean up" userspace. Please only nominate pages that are problematic under our guidelines.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.

Contents


Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

February 13, 2016[edit]

User:Joe forest/bwinbetting.com[edit]

User:Joe forest/bwinbetting.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like advertising to me. Delete old stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Joan&giselles/ Salsa: Su Influencia en los Estados Unidos[edit]

User:Joan&giselles/ Salsa: Su Influencia en los Estados Unidos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft by a non contributor (their only edit ever) and it's all in Spanish. Topic obviously well covered in English Wikipedia already. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jnstnr/Empire! Empire! (I was a lonely estate)[edit]

User:Jnstnr/Empire! Empire! (I was a lonely estate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Myspace band. Old stale draft to delete. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jlrisdon/James Risdon[edit]

User:Jlrisdon/James Risdon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone building their own Wikipedia page, maybe to give themselves links. Stale draft and not good enough to promote to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharti Shriji (2nd nomination)[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharti Shriji (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pure advertisement, but previous afd gave no consensus. The only one saying keep in that discussion was a now-banned sockpuppet DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Carolyn Pollack Jewelry[edit]

Draft:Carolyn Pollack Jewelry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft is being repeatedly resubmitted with only minor improvements. There is no evidence to think that it will get better. If the author really is able to improve it in seven days, then they can do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

February 12, 2016[edit]

User:Gregcarfoot/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Gregcarfoot/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has not been edited since 12 April 2010‎ ... very stale, and seems to fails WP:CORP too. JMHamo (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Beaupedia/Project XX[edit]

User:Beaupedia/Project XX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous MfD closed as No Consensus as there were no !votes made, so relisting for the same reason as the previous MfD JMHamo (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete and I wish I would've voted at the first as there's barely anything here. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete One edit almost 6 years ago, and it's pretty darn close to an Speedy A1 at that. Appears to have nothing to do with the current Project XX. Meters (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No good reason to delete, unworthy of discussion. "Barely anything there" is not a reason to delete someone else's userpage. "pretty darn close to an Speedy A1" shows that User:Meters is inept with CSD policy or the distinction of different namespaces. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment This has not been edited since 2 July 2010‎, making it extremely stale. In reality there is no hope that this will be improved to a standard where it will be moved to the Main space. JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Apologies. Yes it's not in article space so A1 wouldn't apply, even if it were not, as I have now found, about a real TV show. Throw it in draft, and see if someone wants to adopt it if User:SmokeyJoe thinks it's worth it. Keeping it as is is pointless. And what happened to "comment on edits, not users"? Meters (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Throwing it into any process, Drafts, MfD, is a negative contribution. I guess the categorization bothers you? Just blank the page. Leaving it as it is means you are more likely to think of something productive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe: It sounds like you're not aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. This is the correct process to delete abandoned drafts and is not a waste of time, as you're insinuating. JMHamo (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleting every abandoned draft is a waste of time, yes it is, as as some editors are very loose in deciding what is a useless abandoned draft. How many are there? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's your opinion, which is not shared by the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. The number do not matter really... they don't all have to go to MfD together, it will be done gradually over years probably. JMHamo (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the number is at least in the tens of thousands. That obviously matters, they cannot all be processed by MfD, and to try to do so drowns out the important business of MfD. It would be better to put them through as group nominations, if you can develop rigorous criteria. If that works, we can develop a CSD criteria, and maybe even another deletion bot. Evidence is that development of rigorous criteria is not done. Currently, nominations are random, more damaging to the project than helpful. Why don't you take this feedback back to your WikiProject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no question in my mind that this qualifies as an abandoned draft. One edit 5-1/2 years ago, and the creator has made only one edit on Wikipedia since then and that was 4 1/2 years go. If you agree this is abandoned then your comment about some editors being loose in their definition of abandoned is uncalled for. If you don't think this is abandoned perhaps you can give us your definition. Meters (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it is abandoned and of no value. The question is whether MfD nominations of such things in general are a positive or negative to the product. Other similarly worded nominations are not so easily agreed, and so all need review. If you were only blanking, with a polite edit summary, then it could pass without review, assuming only that you checked that it was old and the editor long inactive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It seems that it's only you that thinks MfD nominations like this are "negative to the project", IMO this is exactly what MfD was created to do.. there should be more MfD nominations like this one, not less. JMHamo (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. "Abandoned and of no use" but not to be deleted or even moved to Abandonded Drafts so that it might be adopted. Seems rather WP:POINTY Meters (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ef1500/sandbox[edit]

User:Ef1500/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Frivolous submission to AFC by user who has since been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE for vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete A single-word test edit in a sandbox by a now-indef'ed user ... I'm a bit surprised to find there is no Speedy category that catches this. Meters (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:BITE. User sandboxes are the proper place for test edits. Deleting user sandboxes for no good reason is very rude. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete As not needed now that the User is blocked. SmokeyJoe did you not see that Ef1500 has been blocked indefinitely, so your comment that it "is very rude" does not make any sense. JMHamo (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Many good editors began as vandals. What goes around comes around. Be kind and AGF. This sandbox page can be left alone. OK, WP:BITE may not be held to apply here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copy and paste[edit]

Wikipedia:Copy and paste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An essay of quite unclear purpose. This is more of a "how-to" guide than a WP:ESSAY on aspects of Wikipedia editing. However, the information therein is, as far as I can tell, quite outdated, because editing tools do not look like this anymore (as far as I can tell), so it is not even useful.
I stumbled here hoping that WP:PASTE would lead me to information about copy/paste moves in Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page, and I would like to retarget WP:PASTE there. At this title, I would expect an essay summarizing how to use copy/paste functionality from WP:COPYVIO, WP:MERGE and WP:MOVE. The current page should be deleted or, at least, replaced with a redirect to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources (where WP:Copy-paste and WP:COPYPASTE redirect already. No such user (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep by author: The essay is about the "Copy and paste" box which has appeared on some Wikipedia edit-screens for over 10 years. The page is indeed an essay explaining that the box has been used to paste text into edit-windows, but some skins did not show that box during edit. The shortcut (as "WP:PASTE") refers to usage for paste-ing text into a page, but meanwhile the rejection of move-by-paste in page "wp:Moving a page" could have shortcut wp:NOTPASTE for users to hint at "not-paste" as a way to move a page (the exact opposite of "PASTE"). As for outdated, well, the essay shows the way the copy-and-paste box looked, as it appeared for years, and the Greek letters have been the same for many centuries, hardly outdated for paste during edit, but the essay could show links to some newer paste-tools. Hence, keep essay, keep redirect WP:PASTE as during past 5 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not against userfication, but as that box does not appear anymore (at least not using default Vector skin), the advice is useless and misleading now. Keeping outdated help pages (what this essay effectively is) in a software is actively harmful. Up-to-date information is covered in Help:Edit toolbar, which has something to be desired (as it instructs ther reader to "See below" and there's nothing ), but IMO how to use "Special characters" toolbar is so self-evident that it does not even need a dedicated help page.
    And, btw, Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:PASTE reveals grand total of 8 pages, two of which are this MfD. No such user (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    That copy-and-paste box still appears for some cases with monobook skin, or other skins, so links could be made in other pages which need to explain the data. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nom. Both being outdated and being out of the way is a problem. If it reflected the status quo, I might have suggested merging into an appropriate page in "Help:" namespace. Author's comments shows that page now has a trophy status. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    The information is not "outdated" because that copy-and-paste box still appears in some cases with monobook skin, and again it shows data presented for over 10 years. I have no objection for help-pages to refer to the essay to note the structure of that copy-and-paste box. However, even if the contents were outdated, we don't delete pages on Wikipedia when they are outdated, but rather update them as appropriate. To delete an essay requires a valid reason. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Archive. "Trophy status" is a needlessly rude allegation. Page appears outdated, so it should be archived with a helpful link to the current best advice at the top. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    Again, the information is not "outdated" because that copy-and-paste box still appears in some cases with wp:Monobook_skin but not some other skins, and it shows the data as presented for over 10 years. To provide newer information, then add links to new tools, such as from wp:Toolbars, into that essay. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, if to be updated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

February 10, 2016[edit]

Draft:Colonization of the universe[edit]

Draft:Colonization of the universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article exist by the name Space colonization & a Redirect by the name Colonization of the universe. Also, User:4Gregs not active since 08th November 2014. Ninney (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Just redirect. There is no harm in having the draft in the history of the redirect, and it will show the author where to find information already on this subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The author is aware of the main article and has cited the 3 reference of the draft article into the main article. The author if wishes to keep notes on the said subject can always create a user page of his own & not draft articles. Tomorrow I may prepare my notes on the subject & create a draft copy & leave it without submission. Such draft copies are tagged with respective wikiprojects (Wikiproject Spaceflight & Wikiproject Astronomy in this case) which in turn is later counted in the progress & WikiWork factors of the wikiproject. Thanks! - Ninney (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
If it was already redirected, would you take it to WP:RfD. Just redirect these things. MfDing it is overkill. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod/Ken Muramoto[edit]

User:Scalhotrod/Ken Muramoto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Moribund userspace draft for BLP without a credible claim of significance, nontrivial content, or any sourcing beyond Google search results. Creator has been site-banned The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete no sign of notability, more likely promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Dgheimjoseph/Dgheim number[edit]

User:Dgheimjoseph/Dgheim number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page, by its inventor, about a dimensionless number concerned with the physics of fluid flow. It was posted as an article in 2013, taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dgheim number as non-notable, but speedied after the author blanked the page. He is a genuine scientist with a number of publications, but a search for this number in Google Scholar finds only a single reference, so it does not appear that the idea has been taken up, and it fails WP:No original research and is not likely to make an article. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jmcclusky/Rachel McClusky[edit]

User:Jmcclusky/Rachel McClusky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Normally I'd just blank this article but I'm not certain if this is a plausible draft or just a hoax. The website is dead and there's no indication of the song "Secret Crush" at Prom_(film)#Soundtrack. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Does promotional interviews http://highlightmagazine.net/2012/01/19/550/
Has been covered http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-26/entertainment/ct-live-0427-danielle-prom-mcclusky-20110426_1_original-song-movie-prom
I don't see what is unusual about this draft. Definitely a typical draft, just not on its way to meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Promotion is always a concern. I would just blank at most. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought it may have been a hoax. I'm fine with a blank as well but I understand deletion as promotional with an obvious COI flag there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Blake/Pokémon League[edit]

User:Blake/Pokémon League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2010 userspace draft that was already at Pokémon League until it was prodded, deleted and then made into a redirect and created there. A proposed spin-off article could be recreated but that hasn't been requested. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the content that was originally at Pokémon League. I don't know if I ever personally saw that article before it was deleted.
This was created because list articles existed for the Gym Leaders of each region, ex: List of Kanto Gym Leaders, and the information for Elite Four members was rather large, but was included in List of Pokémon characters. So I was going to make a separate article for the information. Later, the lists of gym leaders were called for deletion and I added them here to make them all one article instead of multiple split lists. I rewrote and trimmed some of the information and attempted to search for sources, but was unsuccessful, and did not end up creating the article in mainspace. I'd rather it be redirected then deleted, but do what you will. Blake (Talk·Edits) 05:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this already done at List_of_Pokémon_characters#Pok.C3.A9mon_League? I mean if you're trying to spin that off that's one thing but it seems like it's already an article. There's some sources in this draft so a merge may be appropriate too if they are reliable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Reasonable use of userpage by a productive Wikipedian. No need for interference. I tagged the page with {{userpage}}, which is usually a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nobody cares about your opinion[edit]

Wikipedia:Nobody cares about your opinion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

page doesn't have an important message that's not included in other WP policy pages themidget17 | babble 03:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • At worst, userfy as a single user's opinion. However, I don't see the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 9, 2016[edit]

User:WhatGuy/Episodes3[edit]

User:WhatGuy/Episodes3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Four year old draft that is a mix of List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes and the first season of List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed and not suitable for article space. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ipodnano05/Sandbox4[edit]

User:Ipodnano05/Sandbox4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old draft already covered by Gypsy Heart Tour. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ipodnano05/FTs and GTs[edit]

User:Ipodnano05/FTs and GTs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace project page already covered by Portal:Miley Cyrus. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. PortalSpace is mostly moribund. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ipodnano05/HT:TM[edit]

User:Ipodnano05/HT:TM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old userspace draft already covered by Hannah Montana: The Movie. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Liquidluck/The Climb[edit]

User:Liquidluck/The Climb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2009 draft that is already covered by The Climb (Miley Cyrus song). Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ipodnano05/Sandbox[edit]

User:Ipodnano05/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace draft that is a copy of Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Alec2011/(HM Episodes)[edit]

User:Alec2011/(HM Episodes) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Alec2011/(Investigation Episodes) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2009 drafts that are already covered by List of Hannah Montana episodes. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Glimmer721/Leela[edit]

User:Glimmer721/Leela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

March 2013 userspace draft of Leela (Doctor Who). Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay[edit]

User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

December 2008 draft of My World, My Way (video game) that seems to have been restored as part of a DRV discussion. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as inappropriate copy. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tony May/LNER preserved[edit]

User:Tony May/LNER preserved (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft from December 2008 that already seems to have been covered by Locomotives_of_the_London_and_North_Eastern_Railway#Preservation although neither version is sourced. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Teggles/Klonoa: Door to Phantomile (Wii)[edit]

User:Teggles/Klonoa: Door to Phantomile (Wii) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

December 2008 WP:UP#COPIES of Klonoa: Door to Phantomile. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Mqduck/foo[edit]

User:Mqduck/foo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

December 2008 WP:FAKEARTICLE version of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and delete. I can't remember why it's there in the first place. --MQDuck (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zaz986/Tinkernut[edit]

User:Zaz986/Tinkernut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace draft from 2010 for a non-notable blogger. Mainspace has been deleted and salted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinkernut. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Hindu Taliban[edit]

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Hindu Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft from 2008 created "in case the article is censored by pro-Hindutva POV-pushers". The mainspace version was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Taliban (3rd nomination) in 2013. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Alec2011/(Both Worlds)[edit]

User:Alec2011/(Both Worlds) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2008 nonsense draft that is a fictional version of Hannah Montana. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP is not a webhost for alternate versions of reality. 70.78.41.231 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page faces the same problems faced by the former MOS:REGISTER, now userfied as "User talk:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register". It does not belong in the project space, lacks consensus behind it, and has been used a platform for continuing disputes over various sections of the MOS:. It is an essay, an incomplete one, and one which consists of cherrypicked sources used to support polemics at other pages. I don't think that we should have project pages serving as a WP:SOAPBOX for the opinions of a certain few editors in this manner. At present, the page serves as a PoV fork of WT:MOS, so as to allow people to who've had unproductive disputes there to have another place in which to play. I don't think this is acceptable. Such a page as this is fine in the user space, but it shouldn't be labelled as anything other than what it is. Given the recent dispute that occurred over the contents of this page, this seems even more pressing. As with MOS:REGISTER, I would tolerate userfication if deletion is deemed unpalatable. RGloucester 03:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • At most, tag (eg {{closed down}}) and/or userfy, do not delete no matter how bad it is. Bad ideas are tagged and archive so that we are not doomed to repeat the mistake. Unless, the case is made that it is a POV fork.
As a Wikipedia:WikiProject page, it ranks below a project space page and above a usersubpage. That is, it is only implied to be the opinion of the WikiProject hosting it. What is the opinion of the WikiProject members? Is this nomination an attempt at dispute resolution within the WikiProject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not sure this is really a "WikiProject page" in any real sense. It was unilaterally made a subpage of the project by SMcCandlish on 10 January 2016. Prior to that, it was an MoS subpage, but had never gained consensus to be part of the MoS. Regardless, the actual "project" itself is dead, and tagged as inactive. I presume that SMcCandlish's intent was to remove it from the MoS space, where it certainly did not belong. However, I do not believe it belongs as a subpage of a dead WikiProject either. Userfication is a perfectly fine option, as I've said above. RGloucester 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I moved it there for lack of anywhere else to put it. It was masquerading as an MoS guideline page. The wikiproject exists for collaboration regarding MoS; the page is MoS-related, and has two editors "collaborating" (editwarring), so it seemed to qualify to temporarily live there. My intent was to MfD it immediately, but when I said I was going to do this, the effective OWNer of the page launched a bogus WP:NPOVN about the page as a delay tactic; then a WP:AE case (and another after that) were set in motion, eventually resulting in that party's topic ban. My expectation in moving it was that the page would not exist at all longer than a few days after being moved to the wikiproject's space, just long enough for MfD. There was no intent to imply on my part that it was officially part of the wikiproject (of which I'm a participant). It was just swapspace. There is nothing historical about this page and it need not be retained.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If the WikiProject is inactive, this sort of activity in its subpages is probably improper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The sort of activity on that page is improper anywhere.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I was mistakeningly thinking that the page had your support!
  • First inclination is "Replace with {{Closed down}}". Appears to be wholly unhealthy. On first view it appears massively overambitious. Even if not flawed, it is the wrong way to go about building something in consensus. Challenging or changing things, or building resource link pages should be done in smaller, digestible parts, in essays (essays that don't read as guideline) or in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The template you suggest is for "closed down" Wikipedia processes. This page is not a "Wikipedia process", and never has been. RGloucester 06:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Look again. Actually, it was created for the purpose of tagging things kept only as a record of a bad idea closed down, usually at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a project, activity, or process...your addition to the template seems strange. There is nothing to "close down" here. It is just an essay. RGloucester 06:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
If it were "just an essay", then it would be OK in ProjectSpace, as it is multi-authored and project-related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be, unless it were to be considered "to contradict widespread consensus", which this does. See WP:PG. RGloucester 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as not needed and clutter. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete (along with its MOS:SUPPORTS and other redirects) for all the same reasons as we userfied and arguably should have deleted the "register" version of this last week, the entire litany of which I won't repeat here. A strong and directly relevant precedent for deleting this with prejudice is here; the issue raised in the two cases are essentially identical, just the earlier one was about diacritics, and this one is mostly about the other perennial MoS battleground, quotation mark punctuation. I object to this being userspaced. It is not really part of the wikiproject, was never part of MoS, and has no "historical" value. This is just a WP:POVFORK from MOS:REGISTER and WT:MOS (and REGISTER was itself a WT:MOS POVFORK), after the now-topic-banned WP:OWNer of MOS:REGISTER got stymied by other editors resisting the constant OR, PoV pushing and WP:POLEMIC nature of the goings on at that page, in turn after said editor and allies thereof failed in repeated attempts to change consensus at WT:MOS. So, it's basically a form of WP:FORUMSHOP geared especially for WP:FACTION building against MoS bits, exactly like the page in the cited precedent. This SUPPORTS page is actually much worse than the REGISTER one (which at least tried to pretend it was documenting consensus, instead of trying to prove consensus wrong and must be defied). The sole purpose of this is POLEMIC. It exists to try to WP:WIN in years-long advocacy against various points in WP:MOS, this time on the basis of showing that they have weak RS support, as if a guideline is subject to WP:CCPOL. (Last time, with REGISTER, it was by trying to show that there wasn't really consensus for certain parts of MOS, and that failed, too.) This is part of a very long-game "source the MoS!" campaign by a handful of editors with tendentious pet peeves about certain line-items in the guideline, who will not take "consensus has not changed" for an answer, and who play a good WP:CIVILPOV game about creating pages like MOS:REGISTER and MOS:SUPPORTS as "tools" for everyone to use for constructive purposes, but which are never used for anything but disruptive activism against a policypage, and diversion of volunteer sourcing work away from articles and toward supporting efforts to work against the system – along highly nationalistic grounds (WP:NPOV doesn't apply to this namespace, but WP:SOAPBOX does). The page is a pointless and WP:NOTHERE exercise, of indulging in micro-managerial, one-sided internal documentation of internal documentation, to fight against the internal documentation, basically. It should be railgunned into the heart of the sun.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
DF is topic banned, and can't comment. RGloucester 14:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, thank you for pinging me.  I had not commented because I did not know about this discussion until I revisited Wikipedia about 20 minutes ago and received your notification.
Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete – Thanks for pinging me, Smokey. I don't consider myself a main author; I was just trying to ameliorate some of DF24's setup for treating quotation style as ENGVAR. This page serves no useful purpose that I can see, was being used by DF24 to serve a non-useful purpose. Wavelength just made a skeleton, which remains pretty much empty. Nothing to see here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This discussion only now clearly reveals itself to be a controversy spill out from a recent Wikipedia:Arbitration matter. Specifically
Somehow, everyone (SMcCandlish, RGloucester, Dicklyon, Wavelength, Darkfrog24) is involved. This discussion itself is now central to
I am very uneasy about approving a deletion of Darkfrog24's contributions with Darkfrog24 not allowed to make a statement. I think Darkfrog24 should be allowed to make a statement, and to give simple answers to simple clarification questions.
The suggestion to userfy, analagous to User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Register, I find also uneasy. Why should Darkfrog24's contributions be given into User:Wavelength's control. In his userspace, he had moderately strong ownership rights, including the right to {{db-u1}} it for any or no reason. NB. I know nothing of the relations or interactions between User:Darkfrog24 and User:Wavelength.
My original inclination, to agree to consensus to archive where it is, stands, deferring the decision to delete to Arb Com. The question of which tag to use is not important. {{closed down}} would work, but given objection I suggest that the closer considers writing a custom non-templated tag. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Darkfrog is not allowed to comment because his disruption, chiefly on this page, was considered to be unacceptable by the various uninvolved administrators. They deemed his presence in this topic area to be disruptive, and hence removed him from it. That's the end of the story. ArbCom does not intervene in matters of content, so you shan't get anything from ArbCom. RGloucester 22:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I did ask User:Thryduulf, who gave Darkfrog the ban notification, to comment here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ‎

Draft:My Clock as Justice for Mein Kampf: The Great Golden Rapture Clock From the Book of Zecharia[edit]

Draft:My Clock as Justice for Mein Kampf: The Great Golden Rapture Clock From the Book of Zecharia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely out of scope personal ramblings. Magog the Ogre (t c) 03:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I rejected this at AFC, for the record. It starts out as an WP:ESSAY that sort of makes a vague semblance of sense, but very quickly trails off into "I have no idea what the hell I'm reading here". (Sample text: "The antichrist will market the mark of the beast to change one's DNA to say God would not want people to be sick, old, mentally ill and this is the trap.") For added bonus, I tried Googling "Zelda London Oghigian", the name ascribed to the creator of whatever the hell I was reading here — and found that not only was there no reliable source coverage about her, but even her basic existence was completely impossible to verify via Google, not even to a lousy social media profile. So the best I can say for whatever the hell I was reading here is that it's some kind of weird WP:FRINGE theory, somewhere along the line between WP:MADEUP and total gibberish. Whatever the hell I was reading here, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 8, 2016[edit]

User:WGTBrett/World Golf Tour[edit]

User:WGTBrett/World Golf Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single unsourced sentence from November 2009 that is already at World Golf Tour. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I suppose one could quite reasonably say "delete as promotion, unsourced, by an otherwise non-contributor", but in hindsight it was a valid draft and such things should be redirected to the now existing mainspace article. The editor checking for his contribution history, and any external bookmarks, should lead to the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Why redirect it if there's no redirected history? There's be a lot of redirects to every article, which is more work if the article is ever moved or the like. Most likely, the editor would check his or her talk page first and not their contributions necessarily and see this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
why redirect?
(A1) The editor checking for his contribution history. Hiding his history is an unwelcoming thing to do to a returning editor. (The likelihood of the editor returning and doing this is really not the point)
(A2) It hides the old unwanted content from archivers, mirrors, etc, replacing the content with blank or redirect, as opposed to deletion that causes archives and mirrors to preserve the last known version;
(A3) It means it can be dealt with without using MfD.
"There's be a lot of redirects to every article, which is more work if the article is ever moved or the like." Firstly, redirects are cheap, lots of redirects to an article are of negligible cost. If the target is ever moved, a redirect will almost be certainly left behind, and, contrary to what some think, double redirects are not a problem. If, as sometimes happens, the target is to be moved without leaving a redirect, such a move requires incoming links to be checked and updated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
His history isn't hidden. Having his article redirected somewhere when it wasn't actually used somewhere is hiding it. His talk page will inform of this discussion, and he'll have people to ask what happened. The problems are that simply blanking an article doesn't mean it stays blanked. What's to done with POV forks that people create? Or people who created versions of fictional character articles before they got merged away? If they are blanked, maybe they don't return and reinstate it but if they do, we come back and see the article again and again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
So you don't trust editors? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I see it as a cost-benefit. If the editor returns and is the kind we want, they can see this discussion, see that there is an article on the subject and work there. If it's not, then they can recreate it anyways or if they ask someone about it, they'll be informed that there is a mainspace version. Either way, we're better off. If I wanted to redirect it, I could have but I didn't because WP:UP#COPIES policy isn't "blank or redirect separate versions" but they aren't appropriate at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not a WP:UP#COPIES case, why do you bring that up? WP:UP#COPIES refers to material copied from mainspace, or a retained version of deleted material.
I do not think you are weighing the cost of an MfD discussion into your equation.
The degree to which you trust editors tends to be self-fulfilling. Trustworthy editors are not tempted back if they see they are not trusted to comply with the obvious. Redirecting to the superior mainspace version is a simple message that any trustworthy and competent editor will understand. Deletion tells the old editor that there are new kids managing things now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:WBaine/Marcus[edit]

User:WBaine/Marcus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

November 2009 userspace draft later created separately at Morton Marcus (poet). Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect. Do not delete. It was, as proven in hindsight, good drafting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tunday Akintan[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tunday Akintan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Not enough content in the draft to identify the subject. Also, a search for the subject on search engines provides results that hint to the subject not being notable enough to be included on Wikipedia per WP:MUSICBIO. (The subject seems to be a musician.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"cleaning speedy tagging"?? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Andreina[edit]

Draft:Andreina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May 2014 draft already at Andreina. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rana Vikrama[edit]

Draft:Rana Vikrama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May 2014 draft also created at Rana Vikrama. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Babbal Rai[edit]

Draft:Babbal Rai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May 2014 userspace draft later created at Babbal Rai Ricky81682 (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zak Ettamymy[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zak Ettamymy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Per a search on a search engine, the subject of this draft may be notable, but this draft does not have any information useful enough to retain. Best delete this so that a more efficient draft can be created, if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Barely anything here. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • http://www.lulu.com/shop/zak-ettamymy/reclaiming-the-universe/hardcover/product-22070880.html
On sale for almost one year, no reviews, no posts on its facebook page. Not sure why Steel think s it may be notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The submission has no chance as is, and is very unlikely to improve if it is a failed book. Why not let the G13 process take its course? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: Looking at the history, I guess the G13 would have appeared 12 days after I placed the tag, but either way, both paths lead to the same resolution, so I am failing to see how nominating it for MFD is in the least bit problematic. (That, and this is part of some edits I take up from time-to-time to get the drafts out of the "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/" space and into the "Draft:" namespace if they have hope to become anything.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood. Delete now that we are here, but next time just let it go another 6 months to be deleted by G13. The page has no content but the author and title of the book. I'd have said keep if there were any hint of interest from a blog. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael J. Tougias[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael J. Tougias (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

A later draft was created at Draft:Michael J. Tougias. This one got a recent G13 postponement for some reason. There's nothing here that isn't already at the other draft version. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as unnecessary duplication. Legacypac (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Everyoneandeveryone[edit]

User:Everyoneandeveryone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE; user's edits are almost entirely to these sandboxen with interminable links to random garbage, with very little to no foreseeable purpose in project building. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. NOTHERE nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Certainly, a very weird contribution history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unneeded and I should the user has now removing everything at all pages. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 7, 2016[edit]

User:Zolascius/Titan MMO[edit]

User:Zolascius/Titan MMO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft isn't needed because it has been already been created by a different user at Titan (Blizzard Entertainment project). I don't believe selective merge would be useful. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as unnecessary duplication. Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect and keep the option open for a selective merge. MfD is not the forum for discussing selective merges. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Book:Science Fiction Movies[edit]

Book:Science Fiction Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requested by primary creator, I will paste his comment, added via an incorrect PROD, below, momentarily. Safiel (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jatt in Mood[edit]

Draft:Jatt in Mood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft article created in mainspace in September 2013, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jatt in Mood with a decision to incubate, and then moved here once incubation ended. Ricky81682 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed and not useful. Need to clear stale draft backlog. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to mainspace. Every reason for deletion is now overcome. The film is competed and released and reviewed. That it is one of the worst ever Punjabi films is not a reason to delete. It's failure means that no one cares for it, it will have no champion, and so we should be careful of extending systematic bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • But at AfD I would !vote to delete due lack of any reliably sourced commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • So you're suggesting moving to mainspace after which point if it's taken to AFD, you'd suggest deletion? If you argued to keep it and maybe consider give it some time, that makes sense but WP:BURO also applies as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I mean to express serious misgivings on it having any chance. I have looked for sources and think none suitable exist. Wasn't initially obvious. Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete unless other reviews and sources can be found as this is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ross Matthews[edit]

Draft:Ross Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May 2014 unsourced draft for a BLP. Article already created at Ross Matthews (footballer). Ricky81682 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed and not useful. Need to clear stale draft backlog. Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Is "He is a massive hearts Fan and captained hearts at 3 different age groups before being released at under 17's. He went for a trial at Falkirk after being released, however was rejected and then signed for raith rovers" the BLP issue that requires deletion? Possibly. However, if you had just redirected, no one would have ever had reason to look at it again. By nominating "BLP" you create a "Streisand effect". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Mike Baggz[edit]

Draft:Mike Baggz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May 2014 draft already created at Mike Baggz. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed and not useful. Need to clear stale draft backlog. Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the mainspace article. There is no need or reason for deletion. These space-wasting nominations are to be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely needed draft. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:John Paul Kelly[edit]

Draft:John Paul Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May 2014 draft already covered by John Paul Kelly. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed and not useful. Need to clear stale draft backlog. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the mainspace article. There is no need or reason for deletion. These space-wasting nominations are to be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Valasca[edit]

Draft:Valasca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft from July 2011 already created at Valasca. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as unnecessary duplication. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the mainspace article. There is no need or reason for deletion. These space-wasting nominations are to be discouraged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabe Klein[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gabe Klein (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Already exists at Gabe Klein. A comment was made at Talk:Gabe Klein in April to incorporate anything useful but it was still edited in November, preventing a G13 deletion. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Redirect to the mainspace article. This is not the sort of cruft G13 was created to solve. There is no need or reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed as it's already on the Main space, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Živorad Janković[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Živorad Janković (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft article already created in draftspace and already published at Živorad Janković. It seems like there's different editors so I don't see the need for a history merge. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed and not useful. Need to clear stale draft backlog. Legacypac (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikt:needs is an extreme requirement met by almost nothing in the project. "Not useful" is absurdly false. There is content in the draft that is different to content in the mainspace article. Comparison of different sources is always useful in any level of scholarship. There is no "need to clear stale draft backlog", that is a false premise supporting busywork, and I dispute that this draft is "stale", it does not contain maintain that is no longer accurate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not required, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

February 6, 2016[edit]

User:ZeMaster091/Cry of fear (game)[edit]

User:ZeMaster091/Cry of fear (game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Although another user created the article Cry of Fear a year later, this draft doesn't have anything useful to merge. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as this is even imaginably G6 and U5 material. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If that is what you imagine, you should avoid talking CSD criteria. G6 is abused if applied to other users viable work. U5 is not applicable to contributions that could become viable articles, as the existence of Cry of Fear demonstrates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, but convert to a Redirect to Cry of Fear. A very early simple draft validated in hindsight by the subsequent article. Use of MfD to seek deletion as a method of cleanup is over-the-top bureaucracy and detrimental to the important process of MfD by contributing to its swamping with unimportant busywork and these nominations must be discouraged. The appropriate cleanup for old drafts of material for subject subsequently completed is to convert to a redirect, an effort requiring a single edit by any editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:استراتژی آپادان[edit]

Draft:استراتژی آپادان (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another non-English language draft from September 2014. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nothing convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, presuming translation-drafting for a foreign wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:شرکت آپادان[edit]

Draft:شرکت آپادان (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-English language draft from September 2014. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed, even imaginably speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Only speediable WP:CSD#A2 if the foreign language article is identified, if A2 should is expanded to Draftspace. Or would it be more helpful and more productive to soft-redirect? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, presuming translation-drafting for a foreign wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:David Davis[edit]

Draft:David Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

September 2014 draft of unsourced nonsense. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as this is even nearly speedy material, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not "nonsense", which would allude to WP:CSD#G1. Indeed, the material is comprehendable and verifiable, albeit via LinkedIn. Might reasonably speedy delete per WP:CSD#U5, promotion by a non-contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Endless Love (2014 TV series)[edit]

Draft:Endless Love (2014 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks to be a May 2014 copy of Endless Love (2014 TV series) in draftspace. Seems unnecessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary duplication. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Michael Redhead[edit]

Draft:Michael Redhead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old draft from 2010, went through the Abandoned drafts project and is already in mainspace at Michael Redhead. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unlikely needed now that it is exists at mainspace. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Gut specific homing[edit]

Draft:Gut specific homing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

March 2014 draft moved here from mainspace because it wasn't ready but it's been created and expanded at Gut-specific homing now. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Auroracoin[edit]

Draft:Auroracoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

March 2014 draft already covered in mainspace by Auroracoin. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Narasimhan–Seshadri theorem[edit]

Draft:Narasimhan–Seshadri theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old draft from March 2014 already covered by Narasimhan–Seshadri theorem. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Bystander Theory[edit]

Draft:The Bystander Theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft that was moved here after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bystander Theory in June 2013 and hasn't been improved. Still doesn't seem to pass GNG even now. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Christiane Woopen[edit]

Draft:Christiane Woopen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Copyright violation of ethikrat.org/about-us/members/christiane-woopen. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

yes, but only copies lists of facts. Let's give the user a chance to turn it into an article. LaMona (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or at least restart for a better article as this may be an acceptable article. Notifying DGG for familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I rewrote the list of positions, etc. --the way it was expressed could indeed be considered copyvio, and it's better to rewrite even lists of facts if possible, to avoid people thinking that. (my experience is that it's easier to rewrite things like this than to explain to someone else how to do it) Citations are probably sufficient when her field is viewed as ethics, not biology. I will have no hesitation in moving this to mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • No copyright violation in the history. The list information is not creative content and not copyright-able. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

February 5, 2016[edit]

User:Ardobot241/ThanksKilling[edit]

User:Ardobot241/ThanksKilling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Even though this draft was created before a different user created it at ThanksKilling, I don't see anything to merge it with. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed and not useful. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

February 5, 2016[edit]

Talk:Geography of Christmas/to do[edit]

Talk:Geography of Christmas/to do (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Relisted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

old sub-page of a talk page with no real content that matters. Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. An active transclusion source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason to delete. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Mccre012/sandbox[edit]

User:Mccre012/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Relisted. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This sandbox draft was tendentiously resubmitted after being declined as not being clear whether it was a test edit, a very incomplete draft, or something else. The attempted title WP:UCLA EXERCISE STUDY is on the title blacklist. If the author can rework this draft into something encyclopedic within seven days, then it can be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Clearly not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. To me this looks like experimentation of a new editor, exactly what a sandbox is for. WP:DONTBITE the newcomers. -- P 1 9 9   14:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get some more discussion going. As an aside, this looks like a copy and paste of the copyright headnotes for the Westlaw annotated California government code section 12940 or California Fair Employment and Housing Act, regarding an issue and citing an unpublished California district court opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Weird. non-contributor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as not needed and not useful. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I nominated this for deletion, not because it was an experiment in a sandbox, but because it was a sandbox that was being tendentiously resubmitted to AFC after multiple declines. The guideline not to bite the newbies is intended for editors who will listen to friendly advice. They should be given friendly advice rather than unfriendly advice. However, stubborn newcomers have to be given unfriendly advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Msr657/Franjo Tudjman[edit]

User:Msr657/Franjo Tudjman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May 2006 userspace draft of Franjo Tuđman. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Dainjamental/Editnotice[edit]

User:Dainjamental/Editnotice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT – Has not been edited since December 2010. North America1000 04:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aaron Booth/Myles Erlick[edit]

User:Aaron Booth/Myles Erlick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Relisted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Old draft, no claim to notability, Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Move to draft I am not convinced there isn't a chance of notability DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Based on the very short draft... no. based on his own website, http://www.myleserlick.com/about-myles , maybe. Will moving it to draft cause someone to write up an actual article? Legacypac (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more discussion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:AdamRossR/200 Central Park South[edit]

User:AdamRossR/200 Central Park South (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Relisted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable building in NYC, covered in an old abandoned draft Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Clearly not convincingly acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to draft, and then probably move to mainspace. This has a reference showing notability as architecture, tho it need more precision. Many NYC apartment buildings are highly notable, probably including most of the ones on Central Park South. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more discussion on whether it's possibly notable in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ricky81682 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The draft says that this building was the home of famous people, such as Michael Connelly. But I believe that alone doesn't pass WP:GNG. I can confirm that this is referenced in the cited reference at p.507 but I don't have access to it. I might change my mind depending on the cited reference or anything else that is found. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 4, 2016[edit]

User:Alexshunn/Sandbox/Gimme That (Ciara song)[edit]

User:Alexshunn/Sandbox/Gimme That (Ciara song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was created by a different user at Gimme Dat. The article was created a few months after this draft was started, and I don't know if selective merge would be useful. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, not useful Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:HermanLawless/William Bart Lawless III[edit]

User:HermanLawless/William Bart Lawless III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No reasonable claim of notability. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, delete, but next time just blank it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Hershey890/Caring for our Watersheds[edit]

User:Hershey890/Caring for our Watersheds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

STALEDRAFT and fails GNG etc Can't find a CSD for it. Legacypac (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Perfectly reasonable userspace draft. Program is ongoing. Could we be notable, or become notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Xdt[edit]

User:Xdt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2007 WP:UP#COPIES that is now at List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens and its various subpages. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You have to look at the separate articles in detail. The first listing, for Abzorbaloff, is at List_of_Doctor_Who_universe_creatures_and_aliens_(0–9,_A–G)#A, Auton is at Autons now, the Beast is at List_of_Doctor_Who_villains#Beast, and so on. None of that page is sourced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The history of the page shows User:Xdt building it from nothing. It does not look like a copy, or fork, of anything. Neither can I see that it was deleted elsewhere. So I can't see how you say WP:UP#COPIES applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That's today. The list did not exist in 2007; it was created itself in 2011 looking very similar to this. It's closer to userspace copy of the 2007 version of this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
What I don't understand, is it (1) an early form of the mainspace page which carries content from a copy-paste, or (2) a content fork subsequently unused. (1) means it should be inspected for attribution failures that need to be fixed, and no need for deletion but some cleanup should be done now that we are here. (2) means that it should be deleted as an attribution hazard. Alternatively, noting that trying to work it out makes my head hurt, none of these lists contain any creative content anyway, nothing needs to be done, but blanking the userpage as redundant to mainspace pages is very sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - No value to the encyclopaedia in keeping. JMHamo (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Hownin/sandbox[edit]

User:Hownin/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

stale draft bio that does not meet GNG. SPA that has done nothing else. Subject is a member of Streetlight_Manifesto though. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Just blank. Please don't bring user sandboxes to MfD without good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The subject of these notes is mentioned in Wikipedia pages, has been a member of notable bands, and has a continuing public presence, with considerable material in the public domain. Therefore, there are no BLP concerns justifying deletion. A search for reliable sources turns up many viable hits. There is clear potential here, these notes should not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as mentioned actually as there are no signs of any better and we should not keep it after it has stayed like this since March 2012, thus there are no convincing signs of an article or keeping it so it becomes such because this also seems unlikely notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "no convincing signs" is a very weak rationale to delete someone else's notes, to the point of rude recklessness. A quick internet search reveals a myriad of potential sources to support a case for notability of the subject of these notes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:AZbibliotecario/WilligFreightLines[edit]

User:AZbibliotecario/WilligFreightLines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

None notable company with contact info. We are not a directory. Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Promotion by a non-contributor. WP:CSD#U5. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:APBio1102/Proper Disposal of Antibiotics and Chemotherapy Waste[edit]

User:APBio1102/Proper Disposal of Antibiotics and Chemotherapy Waste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT that does not have article potential. User never did anything else. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Just blank this stuff on discovery. It could be a copy of something copyrighted, we don't know, or it could be OR, which is not a problem per se, but it is not particularly problematic, certainly not enough for listing at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid JMHamo (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ARMendez/The ILLZ[edit]

User:ARMendez/The ILLZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mixtape guy. Not seeing notability. Stale Draft from a user that posted this and never did anything else. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Delete

February 3, 2016[edit]

User:Bebeduck/House Of Coconuts[edit]

User:Bebeduck/House Of Coconuts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft from 2011 by a SPA on non-notable band. Legacypac (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cheolsoo/sandbox/STIC[edit]

User:Cheolsoo/sandbox/STIC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User placed this into STIC Investments and edited there so this draft can be deleted as stale. Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Worthy edit history. No reason to delete. "Stale" per se is not a reason to delete. Convert to a redirect to STIC Investments, or black with a reference to STIC Investments in the edit summary, but do not delete the edit history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed now that it's on the Main space, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Checkaflu/Problem of Problems[edit]

User:Checkaflu/Problem of Problems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This appears to be nonsense or coined by the editor. Stale draft of a SPA. Legacypac (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ChristusSancti/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:ChristusSancti/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SPA created stale draft on non-notable band. Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Chriskid1995/new article name here[edit]

User:Chriskid1995/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was built in user space, posted into article space by the editor. Then it was PROD'd and redirected to the school district page. Not notable middle school so not going to be an article. Legacypac (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bcoder/Sorcerer Tech[edit]

User:Bcoder/Sorcerer Tech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Õld draft from inactive user. Does not seem like this company would pass GNG or CORPDEPTH. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2, 2016[edit]

User:IndigenousDisposition/Kevon Glickman[edit]

User:IndigenousDisposition/Kevon Glickman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per NOTRESUME Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Iowanews1/Policast.com[edit]

User:Iowanews1/Policast.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft from 2011 about an internet radio station that shut down in 2000. Got some coverage but seems to fail GNG. Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:InfoHEART/FixHEART[edit]

User:InfoHEART/FixHEART (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft, SPA user with no activity since 2012. Reads like a corporate brochure and maybe copyvio. Could also be a WEBHOST violation and the user name is promotional. It is a fairly long article though. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Liho.PH/sandbox[edit]

User:Liho.PH/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May 2014 stale userspace draft that was already tried in mainspace at AsianChatmate and deleted per G11. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Expobase/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Expobase/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This title was AfD deleted in 2007. [3] Content was built here in 2010 and then the SPA editor put it in mainspace at Collinson Grant. I've Prod'd that article too as this appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and reads like a corp brochure. Legacypac (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aditi D. Gupta/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Aditi D. Gupta/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spam complete with links. Editor has not been back for years. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:AndrewJamesCorey/Addiction Psychiatry[edit]

User:AndrewJamesCorey/Addiction Psychiatry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User built this as an alternate version of Addiction psychiatry,and then as there last edit several years ago dropped their work over the mainspace article. Therefore this is an unnecessary alternative article in draft space and can be deleted. Attribution is not an issue as the user edited the main article with his changes. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Marital Affair/sandbox[edit]

User:Marital Affair/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

March 2013 stale userspace draft of Ashley Madison with the name "Marital Affair" on top instead. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Rrino~enwiki/sandbox[edit]

User:Rrino~enwiki/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two and a half year old stale draft for a non-notable website. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tddtrcht/RomanceSecreto[edit]

User:Tddtrcht/RomanceSecreto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

October 2010 draft of Ashley Madison with Romance Secreto for some reason on top. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Herbalremedies84/Bleached (band)[edit]

User:Herbalremedies84/Bleached (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft of a non-notable band JMHamo (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Strike that. They made actually qualify as notable here. The prior band, Mika Miko, could barely pass (depending on the record companies for the albums) and they have some minor coverage in reliable sources. Suggest keep and moving to draftspace for further work or at the minimum moving to mainspace as Bleached (band) and redirecting to Mika Miko. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Drafthorse/drafts/Palestinian Freedom of Movement[edit]

User:Drafthorse/drafts/Palestinian Freedom of Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Five year old userspace article already in mainspace at Palestinian freedom of movement. No indication that the editor worked on the mainspace version so I'm not sure if this was intended as a draft or a fork or whatever. I tagged the draft with some of the projects so they'll get the MFD notifications and hopefully they can say whether this page (or the talk page as well) has some sources that may be worth merging into the mainspace version. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

February 1, 2016[edit]

User:Captain Crawdad/monato[edit]

User:Captain Crawdad/monato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already made at Monato Esprit MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:BluWare/sandbox/EVE Trinity[edit]

User:BluWare/sandbox/EVE Trinity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Doesn't expand on what's already at Expansions_of_Eve_Online#Trinity MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete this one too. No need for alternate versions all over. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely needed. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Page is just a duplicate of a message on the project namespace page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. There's no real reason for this discussion page to have a talk page. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Adagia/The Iron Druid Chronicles[edit]

User:Adagia/The Iron Druid Chronicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already created at The Iron Druid Chronicles MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FK Ogražden[edit]

User:FK Ogražden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Four year old draft on a fourth tier football team. Too low a level to qualify under WP:FOOTBALL. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:AjaxYouthCouncil/AjaxMunicipalElection2010[edit]

User:AjaxYouthCouncil/AjaxMunicipalElection2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single contribution of this account. Not a subject this site is going to cover. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:GDAP Entertainment[edit]

Draft:GDAP Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A previous discussion determined that, because a draft is conceptually very similar to an Article for creation submission, it should be treated the same way, at least in terms of the WP:G13 criteria for speedy deletion; that is, it ought to be deleted after 6 months of inactivity. This draft has been abandoned for 18 months (and the user who created it has also been blocked all this time), so I figured I'd re-initiate the MfD discussion. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete The proposal for such things is at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G13_Drafts under a current RFC which seems heavily opposed so I don't think this should be re-done via MFD. However, I'd argue it's still viable for deletion under WP:NOTWEBHOST since it's a draft that won't likely be an article any time soon given the history and the blocked user. If someone wants a second chance at it, they can make a request at DRV showing that there are new sources rather than a new draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zachmatthew123/2013 Westminster Christian 5-8 grade soccer team[edit]

User:Zachmatthew123/2013 Westminster Christian 5-8 grade soccer team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single contribution from this account. Not likely this will ever become an article. Legacypac (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jordan Lawson[edit]

Draft:Jordan Lawson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article has been repeatedly submitted to AfC in spite of not improving. The most recent attempts were 1) they created a press release on Newswire and tried to pass it off as a reliable source and 2) "re-edited" the article claiming that they were assured in chat that their source was reliable, even though no new source had been added to the article. These are obvious attempts to game the system. (Note: the only sources provided so far have been IMDB and the phony press release.) LaMona (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Just for a bit more context on this, the submitters have been pulling some really transparent stunts to try to fool us into taking the press release as an independent reliable source in and of itself — the most recent time, which LaMona rejected today, the press release was actually credited to a fake publication whose name was "Independent Third Party Entertainment News Publishing Source". It was actually the same press release, on the same platform, as when I rejected it just one week ago, although some of the details had been reedited in the intervening days: when I rejected it, the publication's name was credited differently (but still verifiably nonexistent), while the page content contained an extended disclaimer at the top about how independent and encyclopedically reliable that publication was. (As I pointed out in my rejection comment, however, the sources don't get to tell us whether they pass our RS rules or not — we make that decision ourselves according to our rules.) And the first time they tried the self-written press release angle, which was rejected by Wiae, it was the exact same press release it's been both times since, just posted to Digital Journal instead of Newswire.
Looking back, there was one other source, rejected by both Wiae and myself on two separate occasions, that was formatted as a Q&A interview. I rejected it because Q&A interviews don't count toward WP:GNG, but I had only eyeballed the format. Looking at it again now, I see that I completely glossed over the even more outrageous problem with it: it was actually also a press release, formatted to look like it was coming from a more independent reliable media source than it really was but then giving away its provenance as a press release at the end, and featuring really bad, meandering and blatantly unprofessional interview questions designed to ensure that every claim of fact in this article was directly referenceable to it (e.g. mentioning twelve different movie credits in the lead-up to a question that didn't actually have anything to do with any of them, so that every single title in his filmography list was being directly named by the source as well.) So it was also a fake self-published source created by the same person or people trying to get this through our gates.
A potential article subject is not allowed to game our system by creating their own fake sources to cover off our referencing requirements — it takes real media coverage in real media, not self-published press releases credited to fake media outlets, to get a person into Wikipedia. This page was first created just 12 days ago, and in that time has already been submitted and rejected seven times — and every single one of those times, the sourcing was either (a) nonexistent, (b) parked on blogs and podcasts, or (c) a variation on this "trying to curveball a press release around the fence" game. Delete, preferably with a liberal dose of salt because having to deal with this is getting tiresome. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Update: For the record, I've found the discussion which the creator was referring to when they claim to have been told that the press release was an acceptable source — not surprisingly, they misrepresented the discussion that actually took place. The press release was not offered for direct evaluation, but rather the OP simply put forward an assertion of having a "THIRD PARTY, Journalist written, Biography about the actor's career" — to which the response was "Would you mind adding the source to the draft? Third-party is good, but it's difficult to judge these things based on generic descriptions." So no, they definitely were not told that it was a good enough source — at best, they were told that we would have to see the source before we could figure out whether it was good enough or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Note the submitters are IP addresses so blocking for disruptive editing (which this is) isn't feasible at the moment). Not sure about the need for salting since (WP:BEANS though) it hasn't been necessary at mainspace for whatever reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Donnelly (surname)[edit]

Draft:Donnelly (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: A very stale draft with no edits since April 2011. This editor's only work was on this draft and Donnelly all within a few days in April 2011. ww2censor (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep I adopted the draft in December 2015 based on its sourced contents and using the draftify script put it in draftspace under the AFC banner. A separate sourced stub on the surname, separate or as part of the Donnelley article, could be created as noted. I haven't followed up that much but I can expand upon it. If desired, I'll userify it and work on it on my own then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It's certainly no good as it is and the original editor is not going to do anything, so if you are prepared to userify it and do something here, I have no objection to either option. If you useify it you can take all the time you want,but if you leave it here it would be best to work on it in a timely fashion. You decide. ww2censor (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
In what way is it "no good"? It wasn't particularly worse than most of the other Category:Surnames articles. I saved it specifically because it at least had sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe it's not so bad really. As you say it does have some sources. I suppose if you added some notable Donnelly's it might be as decent, or even better, than some of those other surnames. One way or another someone should try to get it out of here to mainspace or userify but it's not for me as I have other interests. ww2censor (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Whitebirdsandlemons/White Birds & Lemons (Band)[edit]

User:Whitebirdsandlemons/White Birds & Lemons (Band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable band article created back in Nov 2009 by a WP:SPA named Whitebirdsandlemons that never did anything else. From a blog I found the band broke up by June 2010 [4] Yhe lead singer said "Having had so many problems with vans and our gear getting stolen, everyone lost motivation to continue putting so much effort into a ‘brand’ they weren’t excited about anymore.”" With a short history of failure, this is never going to be an article. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Dayv/Marvel Puzzle Quest[edit]

User:Dayv/Marvel Puzzle Quest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace draft already covered by Marvel Puzzle Quest Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:100sport10/bidel[edit]

User:100sport10/bidel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Five year old draft on a non-notable sport. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nothing else currently better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:100sport10/BDL Darts[edit]

User:100sport10/BDL Darts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This looks like it's complete nonsense as the real British Darts Organisation has been around since 1973 and I can't find evidence from the player pages or the like that this is real. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unlikely needed and also unlikely acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:101.119.18.204/sandbox[edit]

User:101.119.18.204/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three and a half year old stale draft. No evidence that this league exists from what I can find. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nearly even speedy U5 material, clearly not a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:100195363abc/Genesis the GreyKid[edit]

User:100195363abc/Genesis the GreyKid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Four and a half year old userspace draft already covered by Genesis the Greykid. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Wiki10/Happy Vale Montessori School[edit]

User:Wiki10/Happy Vale Montessori School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Highly unlikely that a nursery school is going to merit an article, so this is maybe just using Wikipedia as a webhost. Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aarmakesmyday/Travis Clark[edit]

User:Aarmakesmyday/Travis Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already made at Travis Clark (singer) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed or inappropriate copy. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Adityadrbm666/Demonic Resurrection (Band)[edit]

User:Adityadrbm666/Demonic Resurrection (Band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already created at Demonic Resurrection MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete as not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Adhadspencer122/Reaper Rule The World[edit]

User:Adhadspencer122/Reaper Rule The World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Doesn't seem to expand on what's already covered at Death (personification) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jimpferris/Atlantic Theatre Company (UK)[edit]

User:Jimpferris/Atlantic Theatre Company (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional draft 4 years stale. Delete it. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:AgEditor73/2010 NCAA Women's College Cup[edit]

User:AgEditor73/2010 NCAA Women's College Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already made at 2010 NCAA Division I Women's Soccer Tournament MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Abhay ravi/History of the Washing Machine[edit]

User:Abhay ravi/History of the Washing Machine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The name of the draft says washing machines, yet this draft is about rubber bands. I'm not sure if this draft is needed, even if the title was renamed to History of the rubber band. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Blank, do not delete. It looks like WP:OR, and/or musings. These things are allowed in userspace, but best to blank this as it shouldn't be misread as reliable material on rubber bands. Presume that the user will return, to do otherwise is self-fulfilling prophesy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • And rename to User:Abhay ravi/Sandbox. The title is obviously misleading, there are no washing machines in its history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as not needed. Not a Web Host applies. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

January 31, 2016[edit]

User:Jareddude/Jared guy[edit]

User:Jareddude/Jared guy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

4 year old draft consisting of two words. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm just getting into stale drafts. I could just blank it, but that leaves the blank page still. Is there a speddy criteria for this? Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You are creating MfD pages to get rid of others userpages? How could that possibly be useful, even if you didn't waste others' time asking them to review your nomination? No, there is not speedy criterion for deleting others' userpages. Why are you creating busywork? Even if you blanked it, why blank it? What is the measure of improvement you have made? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It shows up as a stale draft, and will continue to show that way for people to check until some action is taken. Legacypac (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Japson88/St.Albert Soccer Association[edit]

User:Japson88/St.Albert Soccer Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A local soccer association in a small town in Alberta does not generally meet GNG. Since this can't go to mainspace the old draft should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • You don't know that for sure. Just blank it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and WP:STALEDRAFT. Burden to prove notability lies with editor. -- P 1 9 9   20:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jankerson/Text Sanitation[edit]

User:Jankerson/Text Sanitation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nonsense draft article long since abandoned Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Appears to be the start of a draft on an article on "Text sanitation". That would appear to be a neologism. However, userspace is the appropriate place for any user's notes, and they need only make sense to that user. Just blank. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, likely just a test edit. Blanking would have been fine, but now that it is nominated, let's clean it up. -- P 1 9 9   20:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Janicerj/Sherman Oaks Antique Mall[edit]

User:Janicerj/Sherman Oaks Antique Mall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Maybe unambigous advertising. Unlikely this business is going to warrent an article under WP:CORPDEPTH and this is an old stale draft anyway Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Promotionally written, but given the sourcing it looks (AGF) like a real attempt for a proper article, and given that the editor made a few productive edits, labelling as "unambigous advertising" is unfair. Replace with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. Things like this don't need to come to MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. Fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9   20:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Martinrocks.88/Acanthamoeba castellanii[edit]

User:Martinrocks.88/Acanthamoeba castellanii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stub article stale draft already covered at Acanthamoeba Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Blank noting Acanthamoeba in the edit summary, or redirect. No need to clean other user's userspace by deleting pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:AdFlSh/Catherine driscoll[edit]

User:AdFlSh/Catherine driscoll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe this is borderline for an article. Should it be deleted or can she pass GNG? Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Blank if inactive and not ready. The question is for measuring against WP:PROF. And the dichotomy is false. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:PROF. Doesn't meet the criteria listed there. -- P 1 9 9   20:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Abahani/Elboya Junior High Elementry School[edit]

User:Abahani/Elboya Junior High Elementry School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old subpage of no value to Wikipedia. The title is not the name of the school, which is also not a high school (it is a K-8 school) and is therefore not given an automatic notability pass. The content is not sufficient to warrant saving reading only "Eboya School is a school in Calgary" This was declined as G2 does not apply to user name space by User:‎ Graeme Bartlett who may not be aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts where you can find the lists these nominations are coming off of. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Abbottkal/Watson Ferguson & Co[edit]

User:Abbottkal/Watson Ferguson & Co (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A bunch of random nonsense in a subpage of a user that has not edited since 2013. Not an article. Not being used. Remove the clutter. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So how to get it out of this project? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Stale_drafts Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. there is actually potential for an article on the firm. Remove the miscellaneous test edits and move to Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jamirdesign/OmniAviationCorporation[edit]

User:Jamirdesign/OmniAviationCorporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Purely promotional page for a flight school complete with links to themselves and their host airport. I've flown through that airport and doubt there is anything notable about a flight school based there. Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Janet2fly/new article name here 10 minute meals[edit]

User:Janet2fly/new article name here 10 minute meals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional piece for a local segment of a local TV show. Likely built back in 2010 for the back link down at the bottom. Creator has no interest in turning into an article and would fail GNG anyway. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jc89sh/Planet Ink[edit]

User:Jc89sh/Planet Ink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Purely promotional entry for a non-notable band. Likely just a way to insert a backlink into Wikipedia for some link juice, Legacypac (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jcchandley/Dr. Thomas Martin Einstein[edit]

User:Jcchandley/Dr. Thomas Martin Einstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft from November 2009. While he might be a great doctor interested in promoting himself (hence the board certified part) that is not a claim to notability on Wikipedia, and neither is being the grandson of Albert Einstein (although that would be cool to be able to tell people when they notice his last name and ask. Since this is unlikely to pass GNG and BIO it should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jcrowe89/Khimeros[edit]

User:Jcrowe89/Khimeros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Purely promotional piece, complete with an SEO link to their website. No assertion of notability. nice to know "meeting new people is easy and enjoyable." but should not be part of an encyclopedia. Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jdrawhorn1/621 Gallery[edit]

User:Jdrawhorn1/621 Gallery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft created May 2011 and not touched since. Reads overly promotional to me, and does not appear to pass GNG. Delete. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ahmadvand.ar/Knowledge Translation[edit]

User:Ahmadvand.ar/Knowledge Translation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft with no edits since 2011. that says "Knowledge Translation Knowledge transfer methods have been classified into active and passive strategies from researchers' perspective." which looks like incoherent nonsense to me. No context, no sources, no prospect of turning this into an article. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jdomplatnum/MALIK Fraternity Inc.[edit]

User:Jdomplatnum/MALIK Fraternity Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale draft not touched since 2011. I doubt this would pass GNG so best to delete it. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bepurple/Clytean Club[edit]

User:Bepurple/Clytean Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Social club with no assertion of notability, Old stale draft with very little info. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bernikovviktor/Enter your new article name here[edit]

User:Bernikovviktor/Enter your new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article exists at Arkady Shaikhet already, covers this content and includes the only reference, Delete as no longer needed, Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Since User:Bernikovviktor was editing only last July, I don't see the hurry to delete the draft. I would say wait to see what this user thinks about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Draft was created 5+ years ago and never touched since. Content is in the article already. What are we waiting for here? Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to mainspace. Editor created that version and hasn't edited since July 2015. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Perfect - thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT and WP:UP#COPIES. What purpose would a redirect serve? This is not a plausible search term and the user is already credited for creating the mainspace article. -- P 1 9 9   20:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Kizor/Notes[edit]

User:Kizor/Notes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article has been already made at Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, though you may blank. Do not delete any page titled "notes" in the userspace of a productive and valued Wikipedian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I should have been clearer with my nomination. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was already created by an IP address a year before this draft was made. Therefore, this draft isn't needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed, get rid. JMHamo (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Andrucius/Sandbox2[edit]

User:Andrucius/Sandbox2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already covered at Bugs Bunny & Taz: Time Busters MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Blank only. Harmless sandboxing in the appropriate place. Please don't nominate other people's sandboxes without identifying a bigger problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Withdraw After comparing revisions, I've noticed that this infobox was added into the article by the user. I missed this edit where it was included. I'll withdraw this nomination and ask for histmerge instead. Thank you SmokeyJoe for commenting and creating the need to investigate further. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal[edit]

Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason for project unclear. Only 13 editors? allowed??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurderByDeadcopy (talkcontribs) 21:23, January 29, 2016 21:23, January 29, 2016

  • Delete as not required and very POV title. Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, but do archive or userfy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment We do not have on-wiki groups with limited membership, but the talk page has useful material. I'm not sure how to deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As with WikiProjects. Archive as inactive, but don't delete. Some will be interested in the history, but we don't want others wandering in and wasting time on it before realising that it is inactive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Mark as inactive per SmokeyJoe, with a link to this discussion. JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

January 26, 2016[edit]

User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft[edit]

User:Aakheperure/Khaled Abol Naga draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Aakheperure/Tarek Naga draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor has not edited on Wikipedia since 2011. Does not want this moved to mainspace. See talk for reasons, However, since this is not going to mainspace it should be removed, Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove delete as it seems like they were related, I didn't look in the right history. A history merge seems messy so a redirect seems sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - regrettable that this editor never returned, and maybe a sad commentary on our support for editors with disabilities. I think it may be worthwhile to hear from Petrb here. He adopted this user back in the day. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Expanding: Khaled Abol Naga seems to be a cut-and-paste copy of the mainspace article from an older revision, which Aakheperure was intending to work on, and since it got bumped to main space at some point there are contribs from other editors. This might require a messy history merge. On the other hand, Tarek Naga seems to have been a frequent target of a sockpuppeting editor who liked to cut-and-paste userspace drafts to main space to steal credit for them; it's already been histmerged at least twice. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • History merge the Khaled Abol Naga draft with Khaled Abol Naga per my comment above; move the Tarek Naga page to Draft:Tarek Naga per Ricky81682. I'm sympathetic to the desire of an impaired editor to create and work on articles in the way that works best for them, so long as that is in the best interests of Wikipedia (and it often is), but Wikipedia is a collaborative project and nobody owns pages, not even in their user space. They've evidently retired, and someone else should have a chance to work on these pages. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I should have made more clear - I'm very sympathetic to the editor's desire to edit in draft space given his visual impairment. I just bring the stale pages for appropriate action. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
And honestly I hope we can work on the draft and take it to mainspace. If the editor returns, I hope they appreciate that someone did look after the work, not just let it sit there ignored. :/ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
So ok to ignore the author's request not to move the draft? Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:OWN. They agreed to give up their total rights when they edited here under the GFDL. We've had editors come here, and someone changes their page or renames it and they start demanding retraction of their edits and deletions of everything and they're told, either you follow these rules or you're treated for the disruption you're causing. If not, we could delete it but I don't think that's ultimately productive and frankly I don't like the precedent of "this is content, Wikipedia can only have it if I get to decide what happens to it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, if the editor does return and wishes to edit using their process of downloading the article, editing offline, and then uploading their revised version, I think we can be sympathetic to that. As long as they're actively editing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • History merge the pre-23:40, 22 January 2011‎ versions of the draft to the mainspace article. Delete the subsequent draft versions. Content forks, even in different namespaces, are a very bad idea and not allowed.
RE reasons for wanting to edit elsewhere for visual impairment reasons. Editing a copy elsewhere is always welcome, short term. Usually about a week max, and it gets really complicated if you take longer than others' edits to the mainspace article. Do not keep copies any longer than required, they are an attribution compliance hazard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge The mainspace page is currently suffering from a lack of references, which the draft page seems to have more that can help it. Deletion is not the only tool in the chest. If the editor has departed the WikiVerse in protesst, then they've effectively given up their exclusive editing right to a page. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Alain Ngamayama[edit]

Draft:Alain Ngamayama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

October 2010 draft. I shouldn't have added the AFC tag but this was also blanked here by User:Abcmaxx who wasn't really a contributor here so I think it's best to list it for discussion. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete - Questionable it seems. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I blanked it because there is already an article Alain Ngamayama. I made the actual article. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Then it should be redirect to keep the attribution not deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • History merge with Alain Ngamayama. Old article that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Ngamayama by User:Randykitty. I don't know why User:User:TexasAndroid moved it to draft, and i don't understand the page logs. Consider renominating at AfD to test whether the addition of more, but not new, sources overcomes the reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • HistMerge - I also question how an admin like Ricky81682 didn't bother with due dillegence in investigating to see if there was something that could have been HistMerged or Redirected to an existing mainspace article. Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    I also note that Abcmaxx changed the content of the Draft page and appears to have coppied it to the mainspace page (notice the timestamps), therefore the only proper response is a histmerge and redirect the draft article. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:2012 in Jordan[edit]

Draft:2012 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:2011 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:2009 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:2008 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:2007 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:1988 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:1980 in Jordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure what should be done with these. These were all created in late 2014/early 2015, all moved to draftspace in early February 2015 and have basically been untouched since then. They aren't a part of AFC so they'll never fall under G13 or be reviewed that way. They could be kept here in draftspace but no one has seen them in close to a year. Does someone want to adopt it? Should they just be kept and examined in another year or so? [Note that 2010 in Jordan exists already and the other empty pages have been deleted under A3.] Ricky81682 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - I choose not to vote but I've been busy so I don't think I can work on them for now. Deleting them seems to be the best option as if I feel like adding events to those pages I could just create the page. Jackninja5 (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In retrospect, we could just move them to mainspace. It's not like they aren't going to be created eventually. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all, would fail CSD:A3 if they were articles and they have been left untouched for so long that there is no likelihood anything will be added. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all They have genuine potential for an article. Someone should just add one or two events each and move them to mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all Can be easily moved to mainspace after just minor content additions. This is a very good use of draft namespace. 103.6.159.84 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • These are good draft ideas. Encourage User:Jackninja5 to userfy them and to steer clear of Draftspace and WP:AfC. These processes exist only to funnel incompetent article writing into a slow path to auto-deletion, with a very very small chance that someone will discover an idea and rescue it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Mixed vote: Keep 2011 in Jordan as a draft (and swat away the "Stale" argument proposer). Delete the rest. 2011 is the best candidate for keeping because there's 2 events in it. I would like to see some more content before it got promoted to mainspace. The rest are procedural creations that don't have any events listed in them and only serve as a categorization index that is also serviced by Categories. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Grovo[edit]

Draft:Grovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a chance of being acceptable: it is almost identical to the repeatedly deleted mainspace article. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That is categorically false. The original mainspace article was only deleted once, by DGG, after it was up for years with no issue, not "repeatedly" as DGG falsely claims. I've pasted the full version of the original deleted article below. The only section that is the same in the new draft is the "funding" section, which lists the amounts raised in various rounds and the company's investors. Besides that, the new draft at :Draft:Grovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is very different. I am not a very experienced editor, so I'm going to work harder to make sure that I'm complying with the Wikipedia culture and policies when contributing content. I ask that you not delete the draft, and instead allow me to fix it. Goodwork84 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Goodwork84: DGG is correct: the mainspace article was deleted three times. JohnCD (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodwork84 (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Salvagable with a rewrite. No question that the article could use some work (I already did some editing on it at AfC), but let's look at the sources. Some are bloggy or just mentions, but I find these sources that are substantial in my estimation:

  • Information Age has about four paragraphs on their training
  • PC Magazine a software review, pretty extensive
  • VentureBeat I don't know this publication, but the article is substantial
  • TechCrunch substantial article, generally considered a reliable source

Then there are the articles about it being named "best place to work" by Internet Week, but I'm not sure that really counts toward notability. I also don't usually count the sources and info about funding as supporting notability, and I think that section could be reduced. I usually see funding info (as well as revenue info) to be an insider view -- it's what matters to the people working for the company, but not for someone looking for information on WP. So if the funding and the "best place to work" were reduced to a sentence or two each, we're left with their training, which I woulnd't call their "Business model" as it is in the article now. We'd have a paragraph or two about the training using the four sources above as a basis. That's what I think could be salvaged from this article. LaMona (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete This draftspace one should be deleted because the mainspace one has the prior, full history. The editor should go and argue for restoration of the original mainspace one at DRV and present evidence there to restore the original one into mainspace and work off that. We don't need duplicate ones and in the chance this get approved, we'll probably have to history merge this anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert masquerading as an article, been rejected from mainspace, and will never pass here. Probably should block the editor as well, obvious COI SPA, who's clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Encourage a slightly more liberal interpretation of G4 by User:DGG. It has been a long time DGG was chastised for overstepping. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is a copy of the mainspace draft and is not needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Legacypac , I created a new draft because that was what DGG instructed me to do after he deleted the mainspace article.... Joseph2302, this is the first I've heard about SPA, so didn't realize only editing articles on things you're interested in was against Wikipedia's policy. When I have some, I will research some other topics. Ricky81682, I tried to get DGG to reinstate the mainspace article so I could improve that version using credible sources, but he wouldn't reinstate it....What is DRV? Goodwork84 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
An SPA is shorthand for Single Purpose Account. There is nothing wrong with being an SPA except for the optics of it. Other editors may assume an SPA is pushing an unusual point of view and/or they are unlikely to be aware of broader Wikipedia policies and practices. WP:DRV is a place to make a case that something was deleted in error and should be reinstated. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:DRV is WP:Deletion review. It's the place to request restoration so you can again work on an article because of new sources you have found. The new sources you've provided can be used as evidence to justify restoration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Legacypac and Ricky81682, thank you! Both comments are helpful. Do you recommend that I submit to deletion review? Goodwork84 (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.